Court quashed application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings, holding disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated at this stage. Ordered office to communicate order to lower court.
Application for quashing proceedings dismissed; reference of bail prayer to lower court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 85
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1880 of 2007
Applicant :- Anang Pal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Ojha,D.D. Pande,Dr. Smt. Meena Pande Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Gautam,Vishnu Pratap
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mohammad Shamim, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Gautam, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 9502 of 2006 (State Vs. Anand Pal Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 782 of 2006 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali, District Basti, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Basti pursuant to the charge sheet filed in the aforesaid case.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The reliefs as sought by the applicant is refused.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has so far not been arrested in the above case and
the police is seeking to arrest the applicant and there may be coercive processes issued against the applicants by the court concerned therefore, some direction may be issued to the court concerned for consideration of the bail prayer of the applicant.
As the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021) has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail, no specific direction need be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex court.
Office is directed to communicate the order passed by this Court to the concerned Court below forthwith.
With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed off. Order Date :- 8.9.2022 S.Ali
Digitally signed by SHAUKAT ALI Date: 2022.09.12 10:37:22 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the factual disputes raised by the applicant and the prima facie case for quashing the criminal proceedings.
Whether specific directions need to be issued to the court below regarding the bail prayer of the applicant.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶8
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶8
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶8
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful HaqReferred¶8
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. CBIReferred¶13
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (SLP (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anang Pal Singh
State of U.P.
Gautam Chowdhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
